Getting the Facts Straight in Denny Case

A Los Angeles jury decided that smashing Reginald Denny’s skull with a brick did not constitute assault with a deadly weapon . . . --Columnist George Will in NewsweekDec. 17, 1993 Outrageous, isn’t it? You saw the video. You saw Damian Williams heave the brick that smashed Reginald Denny’s skull. You saw Williams’ victory dance. And now the estimable George Will, reviewing 1993 with a deadpan delivery of facts and observations, reminds us that an infamous jury amazingly found Williams innocent of assault with a deadly weapon. Incredible!

But before getting mad all over again, remember you shouldn’t believe everything you read. George Will didn’t get his facts straight.

His mistake is a common one and, no doubt, an honest one. Will’s column, titled “1993: Nature’s Hysterics, and More,” unintentionally reveals how Will and others angered by the Williams verdict aren’t immune from hysterics themselves. Will’s error is hereby offered as evidence that 1993, for all its tribulations, really wasn’t as bad as you thought.

George, pay attention: The Williams jury did not decide that smashing Denny’s skull with a brick wasn’t assault with a deadly weapon--or ADW, as the cops call it. The jury decided that Williams’ felonious assault, horrible as it was, did not constitute either attempted murder or aggravated mayhem (maiming). The jury found him guilty of the lesser felony of mayhem, as well as four misdemeanor counts of assault.

The difference is huge, legally and journalistically.

As every cop and prosecutor in California knows, ADW, in and of itself, isn’t a big-time felony. The maximum prison term is four years. By contrast, the max for attempted murder or aggravated mayhem is life imprisonment.

Williams wasn’t charged with ADW in the Denny beating, prosecutors explain, because his crime was far more serious. Under sentencing rules, a charge of ADW would have been pointless. As it was, the much-maligned jury convicted Williams of crimes that resulted in a 10-year sentence.

This may seem like nit-picking--that it’s easy to confuse ADW with attempted murder. Moreover, in the attacks on four other individuals, the jury indeed acquitted Williams of ADW in favor of misdemeanor assaults.

But Will’s carelessness will perpetuate the myth that this jury had no basis for its ruling.

As his error illustrates, knee-jerk cynicism was a favorite pastime after the Denny verdict. Critics who found the Williams verdict too lenient cite it as a prime example of how racial politics and fear have perverted American society. But you can find fault with race relations and the justice system without resorting to misinformation.

Another example is a clever but inaccurate political cartoon by Randy Wicks of the Newhall Signal that depicts three “Assault Weapons in L.A.”

The word “mean” appears above the image of a bloody knife. “Meaner” appears above a smoking gun. Above the bloody brick is the punch line: “Misdemeanor.”

It’s wry enough to have been reproduced on T-shirts. But the fact remains that Williams’ brick was implicated in a felony.

Cartoonists practice parody, so perhaps Wicks can be excused. Will’s intent is serious. Substitute the term attempted murder for assault with a deadly weapon and the statement isn’t so mind-boggling. After all, intent is very hard to prove.

Inaccurate though they may be, Wicks’ cartoon and Will’s column accurately reflected the general mood. Expectations of a stiffer verdict left people muttering that Williams was “getting off.” Long before Will’s column appeared, I talked with three people who also confused ADW with attempted murder. Two were white, one was black. All were outraged that Williams didn’t get hammered with the maximum penalty.

In the recent travails of L.A., the ironies multiplied. The videotape of the Rodney G. King beating created an international furor--yet it persuaded the first jury that the police officers’ actions were reasonable. The video of the Denny beating, however sickening, persuaded 12 citizens that there was a reasonable doubt whether Williams intended to kill his victim. If that was his intent, why didn’t Williams continue his violent attack rather than do his nasty jig? The evidence, they concluded, supported the lower mayhem charge.

It is also ironic that the good Samaritans who saved Denny’s life saved Williams’ bacon. Had they not arrived, Williams likely would have faced a murder charge--a point prosecutors are fond of making.

Denny’s survival hurt the case against Williams. When Denny hugged Williams’ mother in court, his gesture may have put the jury in a more lenient frame of mind.

So if 1993 left a bitter taste, don’t forget the forgiving embrace of Reginald O. Denny.

And if the image of a smirking Damian Monroe Williams keeps coming to mind, try to picture that smirk behind bars.